w\"l;n    ^ne.    Cu\Tnoe.T\c^■r^d 


b 


y 


B.B.\YaT-4^-e\(i 


/-    t 


■^);gmg%^ 

BX 

8976 
.W37 
1904 
c.2 

1 

\1.     2.Z.0Z 


•U 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


% 


Presented    by 


pTet)\£ie-n't  \  (PvX.r 


onrv 


BX  8976  .W37  1904 
Warfield,  Benjamin 

Breckinridge,  1851-1921. 
The  proposed  union  with  th« 


I  KXTKACTED   FR<_)M    THE    I'KINCETON  THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW  FOB   APRIL,  1904. 

/ 


The  Proposed  Union  with  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterians 


V 

By  Benjamin  B.  Warfield 

Professor  in  Princeton  Seminary. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

MacCalla  &  Co.,  Incorporated 
1904. 


/a.S-^.oS", 


1^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    by     '\\-&£>\0\&-<-\\-  VcAWovn 


Division 
S(fc-tio>i 


THE  PROPOSED  UNION  WITH  THE  CUMBERLAND 
PRESBYTERIANS. 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  meeting  at  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  in  May,  1903,  received 
from  a  number  of  its  Presbyteries  overtures  "  relating  to  closer  coopera- 
tion or  vmion  with  sister  denominations."  In  response  to  these  over- 
tiu-es  it  appointed  a  Committee  "to  consider  the  whole  subject  of 
cooperation,  confederation  and  consolidation  with  other  Churches." 
This  Committee  was  instructed  "to  enter  into  correspondence  with 
any  Churches  of  the  Reformed  family  with  whom,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  Committee,  such  correspondence  would  be  likely  to  promote  closer 
relations";  and  "to  report  to  the  next  Assembly  such  plans  and  meas- 
ures as  seem  to  them  wise,  proper  and  profitable  for  the  advancement 
of  fraternal  relations,  for  the  increase  of  harmonious  work,  and,  if  God 
shall  open  the  way,  and  incline  the  hearts  of  the  Churches  thereto,  for 
the  reunion  of  those  who  hold  the  same  faith  and  order  in  the  service 
of  Christ."  No  doubt  the  Committee,  under  the  guidance  of  its  able 
and  energetic  Chairman,  has  been  diligently  prosecuting  throughout 
the  year  the  somewhat  extensive  task  coumiittcd  to  it.  It  is  to  be 
sincerely  hoped  that  it  will  be  al^lc  to  report  to  the  approaching 
Assembly  much  progress  in  the  great  work  of  drawing  more  closely 
together  in  the  service  of  Christ  those  who  hold  the  same  faith  and 
order.  Meanwhile,  however,  we  arc  incompletely  informed  of  these 
labors. 

What  absorbs  our  attention  at  the  moment  is  the  result  of  the 
conference  of  the  Committee  with  a  similar  Committee  appointed  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  meeting 
at  Nashville.  This  Committee  "  on  Presbyterian  fraternity  and  union ," 
was  appointed,  it  seems,  on  the  same  day  (May  27)  on  which  oiu  own 
Committee  was  appointed.  A  notification  of  its  appointment  was 
sent  at  once  to  our  Assembly,  and  an  appropriate  reply  to  this  notifi- 
cation was  returned,  implying  that  consideration  of  the  general  subject 
of  "Presbyterian  fraternity  and  union"  was  included  in  the  proposed 
work  of  our  Committee.*    During  the  year  these  two  Committees 

*  Cf.  Minutes  of  Presbyterian  Church  for  1903,  pp.  90,  123,  169. 


have  been  in  repeated  conference,  but  the  details  of  the  conferences 
held  between  them  have  not  j^et  been  fully  made  known  to  the  publir. 
The  ultimate  resultf?  reached,  however,  as  drawn  up  at  a  joint  meeting 
of  the  Committees  at  St.  Louis  during  a  part  of  the  week  closing  on 
February  20,  have  been  published.  These  results  include  a  "Plan  of 
lleunion,"  certain  "Concurrent  Declarations,"  and  some  "Recommend- 
ations." These  the  two  Committees  have  agreed  to  present  concurrently 
to  the  two  Assemblies  at  their  approaching  meetings;  and  on  the 
adoption  of  them  by  the  two  Churches  union  between  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church  -nail  be  consummated. 

As  these  documents  have  been  quite  generally  printed  in  the  news- 
papers, it  does  not  seem  necessary  to  reprint  them  here  in  their 
entirety.  The  most  important  thing  to  observe  about  them  is  that  the 
actual  basis  of  union  proposed  is  very  brief,  clear  and  simple.  It  is 
embodied  in  the  following  statement  which  forms  the  heart  of  the 
"Plan  of  Union:" 

"  The  union  shall  be  effected  on  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  tlie  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  revised  in  1903, 
and  of  its  other  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards ;  and  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  shall  be  acknowledged  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God, 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  " 

This  constitutes  the  entire  "basis  of  union,"  into  which  nothing 
else  enters:  and  it  is  declared  that  when  this  basis  of  union  has  been 
adopted  by  the  two  Chm-ches  in  a  constitutional  way,  "then  the 
same  shall  be  of  binding  force,  and  both  Assemblies  shall  take  action 
accordingly." 

As,  however,  there  are  matters  which  require  adju.stment  on  the  ac- 
complishment of  union,  and  concerning  which  it  is  highly  desirable 
that  there  shall  be  a  previous  good  understanding,  the  Committees 
propose  that  the  two  Assemblies  adopt  a  series  of  eight  "Concurrent 
Declarations,"  providing  for  such  adjustments.  These  adjustments  do 
not  enter  into  the  qua  of  the  union:  but  each  of  them  may  fairly  be 
considered  a  sine  qua  non.  They  arc  in  general  mere  matters  of  course, 
and  call  for  no  special  remark.  But  certain  ambiguities  in  them  raise 
questions  and  will  require  explanations.  We  are  moved  to  inquire, 
for  example,  into  the  intention  and  effect  of  the  two  provisos  attached 
to  the  section  dealing  ^dth  institutions  of  learning.  Are  the  Cumber- 
land institutions  to  have  liberty  to  withdraw  from  the  direct  control  of 
the  courts  of  the  united  Church,  wliile  the  Presbyterian  institutions 
are  not  to  enjoy  this  Uberty?  For  the  present  we  leave  such  questions, 
however,  to  one  side,  with  the  simple  remark  that  if  the  "Concurrent 
Declarations"  are  to  .serve  their  purposed  end  of  bringing  about  a  good 
understanding  as  a  preparation  for  the  union,  there  will  be  need  of 
some  elucidation  of  theii-  meaning  in  more  matters  than  one. 

Under  the  head  of  "Recommendations"  an  additional  sine  qua  non 


seems  to  be  added  to  those  included  in  the  "Concurrent  Declara- 
tions." For  though  the  matter  here  alluded  to  is  put  forward 
merely  as  a  "recommendation,"  it  is  subsequently  included  in  the 
enumeration  of  those  things  which  "shall  have  been  adopted  in  their 
entirety"  before  "this  entire  plan  of  miion  shall  be  operative."  It 
is  not  clear  what  force  the  adjective  "entire"  here  has.  But  it 
is  clear  that  this  "recommendation"  involves  a  matter  of  some  import- 
ance, which  demands  careful  and  prudent  handhng.  Its  object  is  to 
provide  in  the  united  Church  for  what  have  been  called  "race  Presby- 
teries." Its  terms  are  not  mandatory  but  permissive:  though  the 
query  may  possibly  arise  whether  the  permission  is  intended  to  be 
given  to  the  stronger  or  to  the  weaker  "race." 

A  prominent  feature  of  the  secondary  documents  remains  to  be 
mentioned.  There  is  incorporated  into  the  "  Concurrent  Declarations  " 
a  comparatively  long  section  in  which  certain  statements  are  made 
relative  to  the  faith  of  the  contracting  Churches.  As  this  section  may 
be  supposed  to  have  some  explanatory  value,  and  it  is  not  always 
either  very  lucidly  or  happily  expressed,  so  that  it  may  be  difficult  to 
abstract  it  accurately,  we  give  it  here  in  full. 

"In  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  as  revised  in  1903,  as  a  Basis  of  Union,  it  is  mutually  recog- 
nized that  such  agreement  now  exists  between  tlie  systems  of  doctrine  contained  in 
the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  two  Churches  as  to  warrant  this  union — a  union 
honoring  ahl^e  to  both.  Mutual  acknowledgment  also  is  made  of  the  teaching 
and  defense  of  essential  evangelical  doctrine  held  in  common  by  these  Churches, 
and  of  the  divine  favor  and  blessing  that  have  made  this  common  faith 
and  service  effectual.  It  is  also  recognized  that  liberty  of  belief  exists  by  virtue 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Declaratory  Statement,  which  is  part  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  which 
states  that  'the  ordination  vow  of  ministers,  ruling  elders  and  deacons,  as  set 
forth  in  the  From  of  Government,  requires  the  reception  and  adoption  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  only  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.'  This  liberty  is  specifically  Secured  by  the  Declaratory  State- 
ment, as  to  Chapter  III  and  Chapter  X,  section  3,  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  It 
is  recognized  also  that  the  doctrinal  deliverance  contained  in  the  Brief  Statement 
of  the  Reformed  Faith  ,  adopted  in  1902,  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  'for  a  better  understanding  of 
our  doctrinal  beliefs,'  reveals  a  doctrinal  agreement  favorable  to  reunion." 

These  statements  do  not  in  any  way  condition  the  basis  of  union, 
wliich  is  and  i-emains  solely  (to  speak  briefly)  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesi- 
astical Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  Their  fimction  seems  to  be  only  to  "ease  the  soul"  of  our 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  brethren  in  acceding  to  this  basis  of  miion. 
Their  gist  appears  to  be  that  the  Committee  representing  the  Cumber- 
land Presbyterian  Church  finds  a  sufficient  doctrinal  agreement 
between  the  two  Churches  to  warrant  them  in  recommending  their 
Church  to  unite  with  ours,  and  suflficient  liberty  allowed  by  our  terms  of 
subscription  to  warrant  them  in  recommending  their  Church  to  unite- 


6 

with  ours  on  the  basis  of  our  Confession,  adopted  bj^  means  of  our 
formula.  It  is,  of  course,  verj^  gratifying  to  us  to  learn  that  this  is 
the  case ;  and  we  shall  not  easily  or  soon  forget  the  generosity  of  the 
act.  ■  But  we  cannot  profess  to  think  that  what  it  is  so  well  to  say  has 
been  in  this  section  well  said.  We  feel  no  necessity  laid  upon  us,  it  is 
true,  to  enter  into  a  detailed  criticism  of  the  language  of  statements 
having  so  personal  a  reference,  and  managing  on  the  whole,  perhaps, 
to  convey  their  sense.  But  one  or  two  points  require  explicit  men- 
tion to  avoid  the  possibility  of  serious  misapprehensions.  We  con- 
tent ourselves  with  a  bare  mention  of  them  at  this  point,  since  it  will 
be  necessary  to  advert  to  them  with  some  emphasis  later.  It  would  not 
be  true  to  say  that  the  systems  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confes- 
sions of  Faith  of  the  two  Churches  agree:  though  it  may  be  true 
that  systems  of  doctrine  not  seriously  out  of  agreement  with 
each  other  are  widely  believed  in  the  two  Chiu-ches.  It  would  not  be 
true  to  say  that  the  liberty  allowed  by  the  formula  by  which  we 
accept  the  Confession  is  at  all  increased  by  the  Declaratory  State- 
mant :  though  no  doubt  that  liberty  is  reasserted  in  the  Declaratorj-- 
Statement.  It  would  not  be  true  to  say  that  either  the  Declaratory 
Statement  or  the  whole  mass  of  the  revision  accomphshed  in  1903  in 
any  way  or  to  any  degree  modifies  our  doctrinal  system:  though  it 
may  possibly  be  true  that  some  elements  of  truth  not  always  recog- 
nized as  provided  for  in  our  doctrinal  system  are  emphasized  in  it.  It 
woiUd  not  be  true  to  say  that  the  "Brief  Statement"  in  any  way  con- 
ditions the  obligation  resting  on  all  office-bearers  of  the  Church  to 
hold,  teach  and  defend  the  total  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  our  Stand- 
ards— among  which  the  "Brief  Statement"  has  no  place:  though  it 
may  possibly  be  true  that  it  reveals  the  doctrines  most  insisted  upon 
by  many  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  in  their  ordinary  preaching. 

Such,  then,  are  the  terms  of  union  proposed  to  their  respective 
Assemblies  by  the  two  Committees.  What  are  we  to  think  of  them? 
It  would  be  as  idle  as  it  would  be  disingenuous  to  affect  to  dissemble 
our  natural  gratification  that  it  has  been  fomid  possible  to  propose 
that  the  miion  shall  take  place  on  the  basis  of  our  own  doctrinal  and 
ecclesiastical  Standards,  "pure  and  simple."  From  our  point  of  view 
this,  of  course,  simplifies  matters  vastly.  But  it  would  be  as  disingenu- 
ous as  it  would  be  idle  to  affect  to  dissemble  the  fact  that  e^•en  so  we 
have  misgivings — misgivings  growing  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  fostered  by  some  of  the  phenomena  of  the  proposed  terms  of  union 
themselves.  Utter  frankness  becomes  us  in  all  negotiations  of  this  kind; 
and  in  the  present  case  this  frankness  is  made  especially  incumbent  by 
the  generosity  of  our  Cumberland  brethren.  It  would  be  a  poor  requital 
of  the  generosity  of  brethren  who  have  agreed  to  come  to  us  on  terms 
presumably  peculiarly  agreeable  to  us,  if  we  left  matters  unexplained 
which,  if  thoroughly  imderstood ,  might  modify  their  action ;  and  which, 


therefore,  if  left  unexplained,  might  place  them  in  a  position  of  per- 
manent distress.  The  last  of  the  proposed  "Concurrent  Declara- 
tions" calls  on  the  united  Churches  to  study  the  things  that  make 
for  peace,  and  in  order  to  that,  "  to  guard  against  all  needless  and  offen- 
sive references  to  the  causes  which  have  divided  us,  and  to  avoid  the 
revival  of  past  issues."  There  is  but  one  way  to  secm-e  obedience  to 
such  an  exliortation :  as  there  is  but  one  way  to  justify  giving  such  an 
exhortation.  The  causes  that  have  divided  us  must  be  removed,  and 
the  issues  that  have  separated  us  must  be  made  really  past.  If  the 
causes  that  have  divided  us  remain  in  action  and  the  old  issues  still 
live,  it  is  vain  to  suppose  that  those  causes  Vill  not  continue  to  divide 
us  or  that  still  present  issues  can  possibly  be  treated  as  past.  If 
the  terms  of  union  proposed  imply  the  removal  of  the  causes 
that  have  hitherto  divided  us  and  the  antiquating  of  the  old  issues, 
they  should  be  accepted  by  all  with  acclamation.  If  they  do  not,  they 
can  produce  only  an  ''entangling  aUiance"  and  no  real  union:  they 
can  only  tempt  us  to  "  build  a  great  house  around  a  divided  family." 
Our  first  duty  in  the  premises  is,  clearlj',  to  scrutinize  the  terms  of 
imion  which  are  proposed,  with  a  view  to  discovering  whether  they 
really  imply  the  removal  of  the  old  "bones  of  contention." 

At  first  sight,  certainly,  the  terms  of  union  proposed  seem  to  promise 
exceedingly  well  for  the  removal  of  dividing  causes.  They  reduce  in 
brief  to  this  simple  and  prima  facie  effective  provision :  that  the  C\im- 
berland  Presbyterian  Church  adopt  as  its  own  the  doctrinal  and 
ecclesiastical  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  thus  put  itself  practically  upon  our  ground. 
Any  misgivings  we  may  feel  must  turn,  therefore,  on  doubt  as  to  the 
real  efficiency  of  a  simple  adoption  by  our  Cumberland  bi-ethren  of 
our  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards  to  remove  the  causes  which 
have  hitherto  divided  the  Churches  and  to  antiquate  the  issues  that 
have  separated  them.  Studying  that  utmost  frankness  which  seems 
demanded  by  the  occasion,  we  shall  proceed  to  indicate  the  nature 
of  some  of  these  misgivings. 

It  is  not  oljvious  to  us,  in  the  first  place,  that  simple  adoption  of  our 
doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards  on  the  part  of  our  Cumberland 
brethren  will  remove  all  the  causes  that  have  liitherto  divided  the 
Churches  and  antiquate  all  the  issues  that  have  been  raised  between 
them,  because  it  is  not  clear  to  us  that  all  the  differences  which  have 
hitherto  di\'ided  us — or  ought  still  to  divide  us — reduce  to  differences 
of  doctrine  and  polity. 

We  are  quite  aware  that  there  is  abroad  a  zeal  for  the  external 
union  or,  as  it  is  now  fashionable  to  call  it,  "organic  union", 
of  Churches,  which  would  fain  make  light  of  all  obstacles  to  miion 
except  perhaps  (at  the  most)  irreducible  antagonism  in  doc- 
trine and  polity.     But  we  cannot,  for  ourselves,  help  regarding  this 


8 

degree  of  zeal  as  excessive.  And  we  are  not  a  little  strengthened  in 
this  opinion  by  the  observation  that,  if  we  are  to  judge  on  the  princi- 
ple that  actions  speak  louder  than  words,  it  is  not  an  opinion  pecuUar 
to  ourselves.  It  does  not  appear,  indeed,  that  any  one  has  practically 
the  least  intention  of  surrendering  anything  he  holds  very  valuable  to 
promote  the  cause  of  external  Church  union.  Men  may  talk  senti- 
mentally (because  without  due  regard  to  the  apphcation  of  their  words) 
of  the  sin  of  "rending  the  seamless  robe  of  Christ"  and  the  duty  of 
"healing  the  woimds  of  our  Lord's  body":  but  they  commonly  have 
reference  in  this  particularly  to  the  sin  and  duty  of  others.  There 
lies  hidden  away  somewhere  among  the  roots  of  action  a  saving  leaven 
of  common  sense  which  comes  into  operation  when  the  union  proposed 
involves  a  sacrifice  on  their  own  part  of  sometliing  they  esteem  of  high 
worth.  In  prelatic  Churches,  to  be  sure,  there  may  be  some  logical 
justification  offered  for  the  subordination  of  other  interests  to  that  of 
"unity" — if  indeed  those  Churches  really  believe  that  the  Church  is  fun- 
damentally an  external  body,  determined  by  external  marks,  and  organ- 
ized under  external  forms,  outside  of  which  there  is  no  Church  of 
God.  But  surely  those  who  know  that  God's  Church  consists  funda- 
mentally of  His  elect  children  and,  in  its  external  manifestation,  of  the 
congregatio  sanctorum,  should  be  able  to  remember  that  the  unity  for 
which  our  Lord  prayed  in  His  high-priestly  prayer  and  to  which  we 
are  exhorted  in  the  apostohc  epistles  is  no  artificial  unity  of  external 
organization,  but  is  rooted  in  sainthness  and  is  advanced  only  by  the 
advance  of  Christians  in  saintliness  with  all  that  sainthness  involves, 
in  respect  both  of  faith  and  life.  Least  of  all  should  they  be  able  to 
believe  that  any  true  unity  can  be  induced  by  neglecting  differences 
that  really  divide  and  stifling  tendencies  that  clog  harmonious  coopera- 
tion in  common  duties.  A  story  is  told  of  a  rustic  who,  wishing  a  hive 
of  bees,  caught  every  bee  that  visited  his  flowers  and  shut  them  up 
together  in  a  box,  merely  to  discover  only  too  quickly  the  difference 
between  an  aggregation  and  an  organism.  It  were  surely  better  to 
have  two  hives — or  fifty — and  honey :  than  one  hive  and  no  honey. 

In  very  truth  separate  denominations  have  something  like  the  same 
right  of  existence  as  separate  congregations,  and  may  be  not  merel.\' 
defended  but  advocated  on  very  much  the  same  classes  of  grounds. 
Even  mere  convenience  in  administration  may  properly  be  given  de- 
cisive weight  in  the  matter.  "Organic  union"  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  with  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Hungary,  or  even  with  the  United  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  or  even 
with  the  contiguous  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
would  have  its  difficulties  on  tliis  ground  alone.  And  surely  it  will  not 
be  contended  that  the  only  separation  between  Churches  which  will 
justify  their  remaining  distinct  organizations  is  a  separation  in  mere 
space ;  or  that  the  chief  difference  that  can  divide  Churches  is  difference; 
in  the  civil  government  imder  which  they  enjoy  property  rights  and 


9 

police  protection.  We  heartily  agree  that  differences  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  Gospel — the  very  Gospel  which  it  is  the  mission  of  the  Church  to 
proclaim — constitute  the  primary  ground  of  righteous  separation. 
Differences  here  can  never  be  minimized  without  treason  to  the  very 
life  of  that  Church  of  God  (which,  we  are  told,  is  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth)  that  we  profess  to  be  serving  in  seeking  its  unification. 
,\nd  next  to  doctrinal  differences,  no  doubt,  differences  in  pohty,  or  the 
organization  of  the  Church  for  the  preservation  of  its  life  and  the  per- 
formance of  its  fimctions,  should  take  rank.  But  it  does  not  appear 
that  there  are  not  many  other  differences  which  will  not  merely  excuse 
but  justify,  and  not  merely  justify  but  demand,  the  separate  existence 
of  denominations  with  an  insistence  proportionate  in  each  instance  to 
the  value  of  the  interests  at  stake.  No  congregation,  for  example — to 
revert  to  a  suggestive  illustration  already  hinted — would  be  justified  in 
concluding  a  union  with  a  neighboring  congregation,  though  of  the  same 
faith  and  pohty — no  matter  what  additional  eclat  or  worldly  advantage 
came  to  it  thereby — if  thereby  any  special  work  it  seemed  called  to 
accomplish  in  the  field  of  the  Lord  were  closed  to  it,  or  even  rendered 
more  difficult  successfully  to  prosecute.  Similarly  it  were  surely  a 
grave  mistake,  to  use  no  stronger  word,  for  any  two  denominations 
to  enter  into  a  imion  which  threatened  to  handicap  either  of  them  in 
any  special  mission  which  seemed  to  be  committed  to  it  in  the  world. 
The  work  of  the  Lord  is  more  important  than  any  union  of  Churches. 

Are  there  no  differences  of  this  relatively  secondary — but  never- 
theless possibly  decisive — sort  between  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
such  as  demand  at  least  the  most  serious  consideration  when  a  union  of 
the  two  bodies  comes  up  for  discussion?  Differences,  perhaps,  in  tra- 
ditions and  that  spirit  which  grows  out  of  traditions;  differences  of 
training  and  that  adaptation  that  grows  out  of  training;  differences 
in  modes  of  work  and  the  habits  that  grow  out  of  long-settled  modes  of 
work ;  differences  in  theories  of  conduct  and  those  principles  of  action 
in  deahng  with  the  problems  that  face  the  Churches  of  our  day  and  land 
which  are  the  outgrowth  of  these  theories:  differences,  in  fine,  of  mani- 
fest mission,  opportunities  and  facilities  for  special  kinds  of  work,  of 
providential  equipment  and  call  to  particular  tasks?  That  no  such 
differences  exist  between  Churches  of  such  diverse  origins  and  histories 
is  unlikely :  that  none  of  those  that  exist  are  of  sufficient  significance  to 
engage  attention  when  a  union  between  the  Churches  falls  imder 
discussion  is  incredible :  that  some  of  them  are  of  the  highest  import- 
ance is  notorious.  One  or  two  such  differences  receive  some  mention, 
more  or  less  full,  in  the  subsidiary  conditions  of  union,  adverted  to  in 
the  "Concui-rent  Declarations"  and  "Recommendations."  Whether 
they  are  dealt  with  there  with  wisdom  and  determined  satisfactorily 
will  no  doubt  become  a  matter  of  discussion  in  the  debates  of  the 
coming  year.     Others  lie  in  the  background,  out  of  which  they  must 


10 

surely  sooner  or  later  emerge.  We  have  no  intention  of  entering  upon 
a  discussion  of  them  here.  Enough  if  this  bare  general  reference 
explains  and  perhaps  so  far  justifies  the  misgivings  we  have  expressed 
as  to  whether  a  simple  adoption  of  common  Standards,  doctrinal  and 
ecclesiastical,  provides  a  sufficient  basis  of  union  between  the  two 
Churches.  If  any  of  these  differences  affect  seriously  our  fiu-nishing 
for  doing  the  work  of  the  Lord  or  oiu:  well-considered  modes  of  prose- 
cuting that  work,  they  become  obstacles  to  union  of  very  considerable 
gravity.  It  is  better  that  the  work  of  the  Lord  should  be  done  than 
that  the  Chiu-ches  should  unite;  and  we  surely  ought  to  stop  at  the 
threshold  of  a  proposition  looking  to  union  to  consider  very  carefully 
whether  the  union  proposed  will  really  advance  the  work  of  the  Lord 
which  the  two  denominations  are  set  separately  to  do. 

But  in  the  frank  statement  of  our  misgivings  we  must  go  a  step 
further.  We  have  deep  misgivings  whether  a  simple  adoption  of  our 
doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards  by  our  Cumberland  brethren 
affords  adequate  assurance  of  that  unity  of  faith  between  them  and  us 
which  is  the  indispensable  prerequisite  of  union. 

It  is  distressingly  easy  for  signatories  of  differing  traditions  to 
attach  differing  interpretations  to  documents  they  sign  in  common. 
It  has  accordingly  not  been  the  custom  of  our  Chiu'ch  to  act 
on  the  assumption  that  its  internal  unity  and  peace  would  be 
sufficiently  assured  by  willingness  on  the  part  of  those  whom  it 
wovild  fain  receive  into  its  ministry  to  signify  their  acceptance 
of  its  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards.  Ordinary  prudence 
and  all  experience  alike  have  taught  it  that  the  same  documents 
may  be  very  variously  interpreted  by  different  persons,  who  look 
at  them  from  different  angles  and  out  of  the  mists  of  different  kinds 
and  degrees  of  education ;  and  that  it  is  therefore  not  safe  to  commit  the 
great  interests  put  under  its  charge  to  the  chances  of  such  misunder- 
standings as  must  necessarily  arise  imder  a  system  of  simple  subscrip- 
tion. It  has  therefore  felt  in  duty  bound  to  take  adequate  measures 
to  make  svn-e  that  those  who  signify  their  acceptance  of  its  Standards 
attach  the  same  sense  to  those  Standards,  and  attach  the  same  meaning 
to  the  formula  by  which  they  are  adopted  and  to  the  act  of  adopting 
them,  which  itself  does.  It  has  accordingly  jealously 'retained  the 
final  decision  upon  the  acceptability  of  every  act  of  subscription  in 
the  hands  of  its  own  courts,  upon  which  it  has  laid  the  duty  of  ascer- 
taining, by  means  of  examination  or  some  other  competent  mode  of 
inquiry,  both  the  Imowledge  of  the  truth  possessed  by  applicants  to 
its  ministry  and  the  interpretation  they  put  on  the  Standards  they 
propose  to  adopt.  Even  when  one  of  its  own  ministers  is  merely  trans- 
ferred from  one  of  its  Presbyteries  to  another,  the  right  of  the  receiving 
court  to  inquire  anew  into  his  knowledge  and  "soundness,"  as  it  has 
come  to  be  popularly  spoken  of,  has  been  steadily  maintained  and  re- 


peatedly  exercised.  And  when  the  applicant  has  come  from  another 
denomination,  and  especially  from  a  distant  land,  this  right  has  been 
transformed  into  a  dut}'.  Only  so,  the  Church  has  always  thought, 
and  found,  can  it  safeguard  its  own  unity  and  secure  its  own 
internal  peace — preserve  itself  from  steadily  building  up  merely  "a 
great  house  over  a  divided  family." 

Such  being  the  settled  practice  of  the  Chm-ch,  founded  in  wise 
considerations  of  duty  and  supported  in  its  prudence  by  long 
experience,  can  we  be  blamed  for  feeling  the  deepest  misgiving 
when  we  are  called  upon  to  face  a  proposition  to  admit  into 
the  ministry  of  the  Church  a  body  of  nearly  two  thousand  ministers 
at  once — and  they,  formed  under  widely  different  traditions  from  our 
own — without  any  of  the  safeguards  which  have  been  considered 
requisite  in  the  incorporation  of  single  ministers?  Surely  such  a  propo- 
sition, as  the  French  saj^,  donnc  furicuscment  a  pe?iscr.  On  a  prima  facie 
view  it  looks  like  a  revolutionary  proceeding,  amounting  to  little  less 
than  a  stultification  of  our  entire  history  and  our  whole  system.  If  such 
a  proceeding  is  safe  in  the  jaresent  case,  one  would  think  it  would  be  a 
fortiori  safe  in  the  incorporation  of  single  ministers :  if  it  is  felt  to  be  un- 
safe in  their  cases,  is  it  not  a  fortiori  unsafe  in  this  much  greater  instance? 
The  question  that  is  brought  to  issue  here  is  nothing  other  than  whether 
the  internal  unity  and  peace  of  a  Church  is  sufficiently  secured  by  a 
bare,  formal  acceptance  by  all  its  ministers  of  common  Standards: 
or  whether  it  is  not  requisite  to  take  adequate  measures  to  assure  a 
common  understanding  of  the  Standards  accepted.  It  is  no  reflection 
upon  our  Cumberland  iDrethren  to  suppose  them  possibly  liable  to  the 
same  misapprehensions  to  which  other  men  are  found  to  be  certainly 
liable ;  and  to  ask  of  them  some  such  assurances  as  are  uniformly  asked 
from  others.  And  surely  they  are  as  much  interested  as  we  are  in  mak- 
ing it  clear  that  the  conmion  Standards,  under  the  protection  of  which 
we  alike  propose  to  live  in  case  the  contemplated  imion  is  consummated, 
are  understood  alike  by  us  all.  Othenvise  we  shall  be  just  as  dis- 
tmited  under  them  as  we  were  before  we  go  through  the — in  that 
case  meaningless — form  of  establishing  them  as  the  bond  of  our  union 
and  the  pledge  of  our  peace. 

It  is  barely  possible  that  the  minds  of  some  readers  may  revert  at 
this  point  to  the  terms  on  which  the  Old  and  New  School  branches 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  came  together,  imder  the  impression  that 
there  was  created  by  that  transcation  a  precedent  for  union  between 
Churches  on  the  basis  of  bare  adoption  of  common  Standards,  "pure 
and  simple."  A  moment's  thought  will  convince  us,  however,  that 
no  analogy  can  lie  bet«-een  that  case  and  the  one  which  is  at  present 
engaging  our  attention.  The  Old  and  New  School  Churches  were  ad- 
herents of  common  Standards.  Every  office-bearer  in  both  Churches 
alike  had  received  his  commission  as  an  office-bearer  only  upon  adop- 
tion of  those  common  Standards  under  the  same  safeguards  of  exami- 


12 

nation  and  approval  by  Church  courts  organized  under  the  same  sanc- 
tions and  operating  under  the  same  fundamental  laws.  Each  instance 
of  adoption  of  the  Standards  was  in  both  Churches  alike  a  tested  and 
approved  subscription,  in  the  reception  of  which  safeguards  to  preserve 
internal  unity  and  peace  had  been  observed.  The  union  of  the  two 
Churches  on  the  basis  of  their  common  Standards,  "pure  and  simple," 
involved  in  these  circumstances  little  more  than  a  recognition  on  the 
part  of  each  of  the  honesty  and  due  care  of  the  sister  Church  in  carrying 
out  provisions  common  to  both.  There  was  no  question  in  the  con- 
summation of  this  union  of  the  "adoption"  of  common  Standards: 
it  was  a  union  between  two  Churches  already  organized  under  the 
same  Standards.  And  though  some  question  did  arise  as  to  the 
common  understanding  by  the  two  Churches  of  these  common  Stand- 
ards and  the  meaning  attached  by  each  of  them  to  the  act  of  subscrip- 
tion, the  materials  for  arriving  at  a  good  understanding  on  these 
matters  became  rapidly  too  abimdant  for  them  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
consummating  a  union  on  the  basis  of  the  Standards  common  to  both. 
In  all  these  particulars  the  proposed  union  with  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church  presents  conditions  diametrically  opposite.  It 
is  in  thefact,  indeed,  thus  thrown  into  prominence,  that  our  strongest 
misgivings  as  to  the  sufSciency  of  a  sim]3le  adoption  of  our  Standards 
on  their  part  as  a  basis  of  union  are  rooted.  All  the  antecedents  of  our 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  brethren,  so  far  from  going  to  assure  us  that 
in  adopting  our  Standards  they  put  the  same  sense  upon  them  and  on 
the  act  of  adopting  them  which  we  do,  combine  rather  to  raise  the  grav- 
est doubts  in  our  mind  whether  it  is  not  necessarily  only  upon  some 
serious  misapprehension  of  the  sense  of  the  Standards  and  the  meaning 
of  the  act  of  adopting  them  that  thej'  can  bring  themselves  to  adopt 
them  at  all. 

For  the  fact  above  all  other  facts  deserving  our  most  careful  attention 
is  that  our  Cumberland  Presbyterian  larethren  do  not  come  to  us  out 
of  the  sky,  as  it  were,  with  no  past  behind  them,  with  no  present 
accompanying  them — with  only  a  future  lying  before  them  and  us. 
They  come  to  us  with  a  history  behind  them,  an  eminently  consistent 
history,  through  which — by  means  of  which — they  ha-\'e  become  what 
they  are;  and  it  is  difficult  to  think — it  is  difficult  to  believe  they 
wish  us  to  think — that  in  coming  to  us  they  mean  to  repudiate 
this  history.  And  they  come  to  us  with  a  Creed  in  their  hands 
and,  to  all  appearances,  up  to  the  moment  of  their  coming  to 
us.  with  this  Creed  in  their  hearts:  and  it  is  difficult  for  us  to 
think — or  to  believe  that  thej^  wish  us  to  think — that  in  com- 
ing to  us  they  mean  to  disavow  this  Creed.  We  cannot  profess  to  be 
unacquainted  with  the  nature  of  this  history,  or  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
character  of  this  Creed;  and  we  certainly  cannot  reproach  our  Cum- 
berland'Presbj'terian  brethren  throughout  the  whole  past,  at  least, 


13 

witJi  seeking  to  hide  from  us  cither  the  one  or  the  other.  But  the 
facts  cannot  possibly  be  blinked  that  the  whole  history  of  the  Cumber- 
land Presbyterian  Church  from  its  foundation  up  to  the  present  mo- 
ment has  been  a  protest — sometimes  a  violent  and  unmeasured  protest, 
at  all  times  a  steady  and  unbending  protest — against  our  historical 
position  as  a  Calvinistic  Church:  that  the  entire  Creed  of  the  Cumbcr- 
lanil  Presbyterian  Church  is  a  protest — a  clear,  sharp  and  uncom- 
promising protest — against  the  system  of  doctrine  embodied  in  our 
Calvinistic  Confession  of  Faith.  How,  then,  is  it  possible  to  hear  that 
our  Cumberland  brethren  are  prepared  to  unite  with  us  on  the  basis 
of  our  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards,  "pure  and  simple," 
witliout  being  filled  with  misgivings  as  to  the  meaning  which  they 
may  be  attaching  to  this  act?  It  is  very  certain  that  the  adoption 
of  our  Standards,  "pure  and  simple,"  means  the  repudiation 
of  that  whole  element  of  their  history  which  has  been  a  continuous 
protest  against  Calvinism  in  doctrine  and  life;  means  a  distinct 
disavowal  of  their  hitherto  professed  doctrinal  system  as  embodied 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  at  present  in  use  among  them.  But  the 
doubt  rises  persistently  in  our  minds,  and  will  not  be  stilled,  whether 
they  fully  apprehend  this  in  proposing  to  adopt  our  Standards; 
whether  they  may  not  be  acting  \mder  some  fatal  misapprehension  of 
the  meaning  of  their  act.  If  tliis  be  in  any  degree  true,  it  supplies, 
on  the  one  hand,  an  astonishingly  clear  and  forceful  illustration  of 
the  danger  of  committing  important  interests  to  the  bare  adoption  of 
articles  of  faith  without  the  exercise  of  due  care  to  secure  that  they 
be  apprehended  and  adopted  in  the  same  sense;  and  it  imposes,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  duty  on  us,  greater  than  which  we  have  no  duty  in  the 
premises — the  duty  of  undeceiving  our  Cumberland  brethren  in  a 
matter  of  so  great  importance  both  to  them  and  to  us. 

This  duty  is  rendered  especially  imperative  by  the  occurrence  of 
a  somewhat  obscure  clause  in  the  first  of  the  "Concurrent  Declara- 
tion.?" proposed  to  the  Churches  by  the  Committees.  In  this  clause 
the  Cliurches  are  asked  to  declare  that  "it  is  mutually  recognized  that 
such  agreement  now  exists  between  the  systems  of  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  two  Churches  as  to  warrant  this 
imion."  Precisely  what  is  declared  by  this  clause  to  be  recognized  it  is 
no  doubt  somewhat  difficult  to  determine.  What,  for  instance,  is  the 
reference  of  the  word  "now"?  Is  it  to  the  future,  so  that  what  is 
declared  is  that  a  sufficient  measure  of  harmony  already  exists  to  war- 
rant union,  and  therefore  no  further  waiting  and  no  further  efforts  to 
induce  hai-mony  are  necessary?  Or  is  its  reference  to  the  past,  so  that 
the  meaning  is  that  by  some  recent  change — say,  for  example,  the  revi- 
sion of  our  Confession  in  1903 — a  sufficient  measure  of  harmony  to  war- 
rant union  has  been  at  length  induced?  Aird  how  shall  we  determiiie 
what  the  measure  of  harmony  is  that  is  recognized  by  the  Committees 
and  is  to  be  recognized  by  the  Churches  as  necessary  before  union  is 


14 

warranted?  Certainly  not  mere  community  in  teaching  and  defending 
"essential  evangelical  doctrine,"  we  are  glad  to  observe.  For  that  the 
two  Chiirches  are  united  in  common  devotion  to  essential  "evangelical 
doctrine"  is  made  in  the  next  clause  the  subject  of  additional  recogni- 
tion :  "mutual  acknowledgment  also  is  made."  We  say  we  are  glad  to 
observe  this,  because  if  what  the  Churches  were  asked  to  recognize  were 
that  community  in  "essential  evangelical  doctrine"  constitutes  sufK- 
cient  agreement  to  warrant  union,  it  woidd  be  perhaps  the  most  remark- 
able recommendation  ever  made  to  a  Church  by  a  joint  Committee. 
For  in  that  case  the  recommendation  would  amount  to  nothing  less  than 
this:  that  the  Presbyterian  Chm-ch  in  the  United  States  of  America 
should  by  a  mere  declaration  of  the  Assembly  vacate  its  entire  doctrinal 
position,  entrenched  as  that  doctrinal  position  nevertheless  is  in  doc- 
trinal Standards  unalterable  save  by  a  long  and  complicated  consti- 
tutional process ;  and  that,  at  the  very  moment  when  these  Standards 
are  being  "adopted"  as  the  bond  of  union  between  two  contracting 
Churches. 

It  is  so  clearly  idtra  vires  for  the  Assembly  to  declare  in  such  a 
I  deliverance  that  the  Standards  are  to  be  taken  in  this  I'educed  sense, 
and  such  a  declaration  would  be  so  clearly  a  brutimi  julmen,  that 
,  it  would  be  impossible  to  believe  that  the  Committees  intended  to 
I  imply  by  this  confused  and  confusing  clause  that  the  agreement  of  the 
1  two  Confessions  in  evangelicalism  is  sufficient  agreement  to  warrant 
union,  even  had  we  not  the  subsequent  clause  to  forbid  the  imposition 
of  this  sense  upon  it.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  it  is  not 
clear  that  any  deeper  agreement  exists  between  the  two  Confessions, 
which  we  are  here  apparently  recommended  to  declare  to  agree  suffi- 
ciently to  warrant  the  union  of  the  two  Churches  professing  their 
respective  faiths  by  their  mediation.  Possibly  there  has  been  a  slip 
of  the  pen  in  the  framing  of  this  clause,  and  what  is  intended  to  be 
recognized  is  only  such  an  agreement  in  faith  between  the  two  Churches 
as  to  warrant  union,  rather  than  any  agreement  "between  the  sj^stems 
of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  two  Churches." 
Meanwhile  it  must  be  exceedingly  evident  that  as  a  measure  to  produce 
a  good  understanding  this  section  of  the  "Concurrent  Declarations" 
is  foredoomed  to  the  saddest  failure ;  and  that  it  is  exceedingly  liable 
to  interpretations  which  make  it  ask  the  Churches  to  propound  declara- 
tions that  are  directly  contrary  to  the  facts.  It  would  be  directly 
contrary  to  the  fact  to  declare  that  an  agreement  between  the  systems 
of  doctrine  contained  in  the  two  Confessions  so  far  as  this,  viz.,  that 
both  teach  the  essential  doctrines  of  evangelical  religion,  is  sufficient 
agreement  to  warrant  miion.  The  Presbyterian  Clunxh  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  by  the  mere  fact  of  maintaining  its  dis- 
tinctively Calvinistic  Standards  and  by  them  separating  itself  from 
other  evangelical  but  non-Cah'inistic  bodies — Lutheran,  Wcsleyan 
and  the  like — bears  constant  testimony  to  the   contrary:  and  has 


15 

entrenched  this  testimony  behind  elaborate  constitutional  safeguards, 
which  no  declarative  act  of  any  Assembly  can  destroy  or  weaken. 
And  it  would  be  equally  directly  contrary  to  the  fact  to  declare  that 
any  deeper  agreement  than  is  involved  in  the  common  teaching  of 
"essential  evangelical  doctrine"  "exists  between  the  systems  of 
doctrine  contained  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  two  Churches." 

The  possibility  of  imposing  such  intolerable  interpretations  upon 
this  unfortunate  clause,  quite  apart  from  any  question  whether  either 
is  its  intended  meaning — as  surely  neither  can  be — renders  it  impera- 
tive that  the  actual  relation  of  the  two  Confessions  to  one  another 
should  be  made  perfectly  plain. 

The  systems  of  doctrine  taught  in  these  two  Confessions  do 
not  stand  related  to  one  another  as  more  and  less  clear,  or 
more  and  less  full,  or  more  and  less  consistent,  or  more  and  less 
jgenial  expressions  of  the  same  system  ;  but  as  precise  contra- 
Idictories.  The  one  is  a  clear,  full,  consistent  and  genial  expres- 
Ision  of  the  Calvinistic  sj^stem.  The  other  is  an  equally  clear,  full, 
I  consistent  and  genial  expression  of  the  Arminian  system.  We  are 
I  not  vmaware  that  our  Cumberland  brethren  do  not  affect  the  name  of 
Arminians,  and  desire  to  be  understood  rather  as  occupying,  or  at  least 
as  seeking  to  occupy,  an  intermediate  position  between  the  two  great 
systems.  Nor  are  we  unappreciative  of  the  fact  that  in  a  few  items 
of  doctrine  they  separate  themselves  from  the  type  of  Arminianism 
ordinarily  taught  by  the  theologians  of  the  great  Methodist  bodies, 
whether  of  Britain  or  America,  whether  of  the  earlier  or  later  genera- 
tions of  Wesleyanism.  But  Weslej'anism  and  Arminianism  are  not 
absolutely  equipollent  terms;  and  despite  the  minor  differences  that 
may  exist  between  the  structures  raised  on  the  fimdamental  Armin- 
ian principles  by  varied  types  of  Arminianism,  no  one  of  these  tj^Dcs 
can  cease  to  be  Arminian  so  long  as  its  organic  principles  are 
the  Arminian  fundamentals  of  human  autonomy  and  imiversal 
grace.  And  the  system  set  forth  in  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Confession  is  as  pure  a  development  of  the  principle  of  universal 
grace — "divine  influence"  it  is  called  here — as  that  developed  by  any 
other  typical  form  of  Arminianism — Dutch,  Jesuit  or  Wesleyan.  We 
designate  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Cumberland  Presb}' terian 
Church  an  Arminian  document,  not  as  wishing  to  affix  a  term  of 
reproach  upon  it,  but  merely  as  wishing  to  describe  it  intelhgibh'^  by 
assigning  it  to  its  proper  class.  It  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  not  only 
a  typical  Arminian  document,  but  one  of  the  most  consequent  and 
consistent  and,  we  may  add,  at  once  one  of  the  most  able  and  the 
most  attractive  of  its  class.  Evangelical  Ai-minianisra  has,  in  fact, 
reached  as  pure  and  concinnated  an  expression  in  it  as  has  ever  been 
given  it  in  a  confessional  document. 

It  could  not  indeed  fail  to  be  a  purely  Arminian  document  if  it  were 


16 

at  all  fitly  to  represent  the  movement  out  of  which  it  grew.  For  this 
movement  had  as  its  governing  principle  precisely  protest  against  Cal- 
vinism in  its  formative  principles  as  enunciated  in  the  cardinal  doc- 
trines of  absolute  predestination  and  irresistible  grace.  The  "fathers'! 
of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  represented  their  protest 
indeed  to  bo  against  "fatalism."  But  whatever  confusion  between 
"predestination"  and  "fatalism,"  "fatahsm"  and  "irresistible  grace," 
may  have  troubled  the  minds  of  the  "fathers,"  it  speedily  became 
evident  on  the  emergence  of  the  Church  into  separate  organization 
that  what  was  assaulted  under  this  opprobrious  name  was  just  Cal- 
vinism. The  entire  literature  produced  by  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terian Church  not  only  illustrates  this  fact,  but  demonstrates  it  to 
satiety.  Everywhere  throughout  the  whole  of  it,  it  is  just  predestina- 
tion— as  taught  by  Augustine,  as  taught  by  Calvin,  as  taught  by  the 
Reformed  divines  of  every  type  and  as  embodied  in  the  Reformed 
Creeds  of  every  class — that  comes  up  for  criticism  and  reprobation: 
and  everywhere  a  doctrine  is  opposed  to  it  which  makes  the  determina- 
tion of  God  in  the  matter  of  the  salvation  of  the  individual  soul  wait 
on  the  prior  action  of  the  human  spirit.  But  we  need  not  go  for  proof 
beyond  the  credal  statements  of  the  Church  themselves.  What  the 
"  fathers  "  set  themselves  to  do  in  the  preparation  of  their  first  Confession 
(adopted  in  1S14)  was  not  so  prudently  to  define  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination as  to  exclude  all  implications  of  real  fatalism,  Ijut  just  to 
exscind  the  doctrine  of  predestination  altogether.  They  themselves 
speak  of  their  work  no  doubt  as  directed  to  "erasing  from  the  old  Con- 
fession the  idea  of  fatahty";  but  the  book  is  here  to  speak  for  itself, 
and  what  is  erased  is  every  faintest  allusion  to  predestination,  electing 
grace  and  effectual  calling.*  A  long  explanatory  note  is  added,  to  be 
sure,  to  the  third  chapter,  in  which  it  is  essayed  to  mark  out  an  "inter- 
mediate position"  between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism;  but  in  which 
rather  the  direct  antithesis  to  Calvinism  of  the  whole  conception  oper- 
ated with  is  brought  clearly  out:  "In  a  particular  and  saving  sense, 
none  can  be  properly  called  God's  elect  till  they  be  justified  and  united 
to  Christ."  With  this  blossoming  of  the  green  tree  the  fruitage  that 
has  been  borne  on  the  dry  is  not  surprising.  The  manner  in  which 
the  Confession  of  1814  was  framed — largely  by  a  process  of  elimination 
of  the  predestinarian  assertions — left  the  positive  development  of  the 
implications  of  the  doctrine  of  universal  grace  incompletely  worked  out. 
The  Church  was  therefore  restless  until  an  entirely  new  Confession 
was  drawn  up  (adopted  in  1883),  in  which,  no  longer  satisfied  with  the 
mere  elimination — as  we  arc  told  in  the  Preface — of  "the  doctrine  of 
universal  foreordination  and  its  legitimate  sequences,  unconditional 
election  and  reprobation,  limited  atonement,  and  divine  influence 

*  The  principal  changes  made  by  it  in  the  Westminster  Confession  may  be 
conveniently  inspected  in  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review  for  July,  1902. 
pp.  418  sq. 


17 

correspondingly  circumscribed,"  it  built  up  constructively  a  complete 
system  on  the  Arminian  principle  of  universal  grace  as  its  prindpium. 
It  is  probably  the  most  elaborately  developed,  thoroughly  compacted 
and  completely  concinnated  Arminian  creed  in  existence :  everywhere 
set  foursquare  in  opposition  to  what  its  authors  call,  with  imnecessary 
opprobrium,  "hyper-Calvinism."  As  a  piece  of  constructive  evan- 
gehcal  Arminianism  it  is  worthy  of  much  praise,  and  its  difference 
from  its  predecessor  of  1814  turns  just  on  the  fact  that  the  eariier 
creed  was  merely  destructive,  while  this  successfully  takes  up  the 
constructive  role.* 

We  deem  the  matter  of  the  Arminian  character  of  this  Confession 
of  sufficient  importance  at  the  present  juncture  to  justify  entering 
upon  it  somewhat  more  in  detail. 

The  clash  of  the  Arminian  and  Calvinistic  principles  is  always  most 
sharply  manifested  in  what  is  called,  technically,  the  ordo  salutis, 
or  the  enumeration  of  the  steps  or  stages  in  which  salvation  is  made 
the  possession  of  the  sinner.  The  Calvinistic  scheme  requires  the 
following  order:  Regeneration,  Faith,  Justification,  Sanctification, 
etc. :  and  all  Calvinistic  documents  so  give  it.  The  Arminian  scheme 
most  naturally  falls  into  the  following  order :  Sufficient  Grace, 
Faith,  Justification,  Regeneration,  Sanctification,  etc.  It  is,  now, 
this  Arminian  ordo  salutis  which  constitutes  the  core  of  the  Cum- 
berland Confession  (§§  38  sq.).  To  go  more  into  particulars,  the 
Cumberland  Confession  teaches  with  great  explicitness  that  the 
saving  work  begins  with  a  universal  divine  influence  (§§  38  sq.), 
by  which  the  Holy  Spirit,  operating  thus  on  every  man  without 
exception  (§  38),  so  acts  upon  man  (§  39)  that  it  is  made  possible 
for  all  to  be  saved  (§  40),  but  not  certain  that  any  should  be 
saved  (§  41).  It  is  expressly  denied  that  this  influence  is  irresistible, 
and  as  expressly  affirmed  that  it  is  rendered  effectual  only  by  the  sm- 
ner's  own  act  of  faith  (§41).  This  act  of  faith  becomes  thus  the  proper 
condition  (§§  46  and  49)  on  which  all  subsequent  saving  acts  of  God 
depend.  Those  that  believe,  accordingly,  are  justified  (§§48  sq.), 
and  then  regenerated  (§§  51  sq.),  and  so  on  through  the  remaining 
stages.  We  need  not  stop  to  point  out  that  this  is  Arminianism  in 
its  purest  and  most  irreducible  expression,  and  is  the  precise  contra- 
diction of  the  entire  Reformed  system. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  indicate,  however,  how  the  necessary  corol- 
laries of  this  ordo  salutis — which  include  the  denial  of  all  the  elements 
of  the  Reformed  system — emerge  in  the  Cumberland  Confession.  The 
so-called  "five  points"  against  which  the  original  Remonstrants  pro- 
tested in  the  Reformed  system  concerned  the  doctrines  of  absolute 
predestination,  particular  redemption,  original  sin,  efficacious  grace  and 

*  For  the  origin  and  character  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Confession  of 
1883,  see  The  Prisbylerian  and  Rejormed  Review  for  July,  19U2,  pp.  424  sq. 


18 

perseverance.     (1)  The  hinge  of  the  Reformed  system,  and  the  central 
point  of  the  Arminian  assault  alike,  is  the  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace. 
And  we  have  already  seen  that  the  Cumljerland  Confession  explicitly 
rejects  this  doctrine :  it  denies  in  terms  that  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
saves  by  its  own  power — it  only  renders  it  possible  for  man  to  save 
himself  (§  40);  it  roundly  asserts  that  this  grace  is  "not  irresistible" 
(§  41) ;  and  as  roundly  declares  that  it  is  rendered  effectual  only  by  the 
improvement  of  it  by  the  sinner  (§  41).    This  is  not  only  a  decided 
but  a  polemic  rejection  of  the  Reformed  principle  at  its  centre.     (2) 
Now  this  rejection  of  efficacious  grace  not  only  leaves  no  place  for  but 
definitely  excludes  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  predestination.     Accord- 
ingly the  sections  on  the  Decrees  of  God  (§§8  and  9)  carefully  confine 
predestination  to  God's  own  acts,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  acts  of  other 
agents,  which  are  thus  left  "free " ;  and  the  other  doctrines  are  through- 
out the  Confession  carefully  adjusted  to  this  exclusion  of  all  "election." 
For  example,  in  §  17  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  given  its  distinctively 
Arminian  form  as  establishing  a  new  gracious  probation  for  all  men: 
that  is,  the  parties  to  it  are  conceived  not  as  God  and  Christ,  nor  as 
God  and  Christ  as  the  Head  of  His  people,  nor  as  God  and  Christ's 
people  in  Him ;  but  as  God  and  all  men  indiscriminately,  who  are  offered 
now  a  new  and  easier  probation  than  Adam  enjoyed.    Again  in  §  95  the 
invisible  Church  is  made  to  consist,  not  of  God's  elect  (luiown  to  Him 
prior  to  any  foreseen  action  of  their  own),  but  only  of  those  who  have 
already  believed — that  is  to  say,  is  confused  with  the  visible  Church, 
(3)  Similarly  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  taught  in  its  complete  Ar- 
minian form,  that  is,  as  a  theoretical  postulate,  set  aside  practically 
in  the  case  of  all  men  ahke  by  a  new  "gracious  probation"  under  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  (§  17),  that  is,  by  a  manifestation  of  the  spirit  to 
every  man,  rendering  it  now  possible  for  them  to  be  saved  (§§  40,  41). 
This  is  the  precise  doctrine  of  Arminian  "gracious  ability,"  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Pelagian  "natural  abihty."     It  is  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  the  Cumberland  Confession,  in  taking  its  position  here 
with  the  evangelical  Arminians,  does  not  wholly  escape  a  Pelagian- 
izing  tendency  in  its  doctrine  of  sin.     This  comes  out  more  promi- 
nently, however,  in  its  doctrine  of  the  original  state  of  man  (§  11; 
cp.  §  18),  which  it  studiously  speaks  of  as  a  state  of  "uprightness"  and 
"innocence,"  to  the  neglect  of  the  positive  "righteousness  and  holi- 
ness" which  is  the  essence  of  the  Reformed  doctrine;  and  also  in  its 
equally  studious  exclusion  of  all  confession  of  a  doctrine  of  "imputa- 
tion" of  sin.     (4)  The  Reformed  doctrine  of  "particular  reilemption," 
it  goes  without  saying,  is  directly  and  repeatedly  antagonized.     It 
is  the  fundamental  contention  of  this  Confession  that  in  all  that  God 
docs  toward  saving  the  sinner — whether  in  the  gift  of  a  Redeemer,  or 
in  the  gift  of  the  applying  Spirit— He  has  all  men  indifferently  in  mind 
(§§  27,  31,  33,  38,  40,  etc.).    The  exclusion  of  all  particularism  in  the 
process  of  salvation  might  indeed  be  said  to  be  the  chief  purpose  of 


19 

this  Confession.  (5)  Of  the  five  "points"  there  remains  only  that  of 
the  "Perseverance  of  the  Saints,"  and  this  the  Cumberland  Con- 
fession, with  utter  disregard  of  the  logic  of  its  own  system,  inconsist- 
ently preserves  (§  60).  Of  the  "five  points  of  Calvinism,"  so  called, 
therefore,  this  Confession  is  in  a  polemic  attitude  toward  four  and 
retains  a  single  one,  doubtless  through  historical,  since  it  cannot  be 
through  logical,  consistency.  It  would  be  easy  to  go  on  and  show 
that  the  whole  fabric  of  the  Confession  is  determined  by  its  Arminian 
standpoint,  and  that  it  is  through  and  through  an  Ai-minian  document 
with  a  sharply  polemic  edge  turned  against  the  Reformed  system. 
Surely,  enough  has  been  already  said,  however,  to  exhibit  the  fact  that 
it  is  simply  the  contradictory  of  the  Reformed  system. 

It  follows,  of  course,  that  no  harmony  can  be  instituted  between  the 
Cumberland  Confession  and  the  Westminster  Confession:  you  can- 
not harmonize  precise  contradictories.  It  is  impossible  to  hold  the 
one  Creed  in  one  hand  and  the  other  in  the  other,  except  on  the  expedi- 
ent of  not  letting  the  right  hand  know  what  the  left  hand  is  doing. 
To  profess  to  accept  both  is  saying  yes  and  no  in  the  same  breath. 
The  acceptance  of  one  is  ipso  facto  the  disavowal  of  the  other:  standing 
side  by  side  they  do  not  modify  one  another,  but  obliterate  one  another 
in  their  entire  systematic  development.  How,  then,  can  we  hear 
those  who  have  hitherto  been  apparently  sincei'e  adherents  of  the  one, 
without  express  disavowal  of  it  proposing  to  "adopt"  the  other,  with- 
out experiencing  the  most  serious  misgivings  as  to  whether  the  meaning 
of  the  act  is  fully  appreciated? 

These  misgivings  are  certainly  not  allayed  by  the  appearance  in 
the  fabric  of  the  Committees'  recommendations  of  yet  further  clauses, 
besides*  those  already  mentioned,  which  we  cannot  help  fearing  either 
may  be  indications  of,  or  at  least  may  prove  in  the  future  causes  of, 
very  grave  misapprehension.  These  are  clauses  which  may  possibly  be 
read  as  implying  that  something  in  the  revision  of  its  Confession  of 
Faith  completed  in  1903,  may  operate  essentially  to  alter  either  the 
Confessional  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  or  at  least  the  relation  in  which  that  Church  stands  to  its 
Confession.  Nothing,  of  course,  could  be  more  mistaken;  and  we 
should  be  ashamed  to  speak  of  so  gross  a  misapprehension  as  possible, 
did  we  not  have  to  reckon,  when  dealing  wth  popular  impressions, 
with  the  reckless  misrepresentations  of  the  public  press,  which  too 
often  seeks  to  create  a  sensation  at  the  cost  of  all  regard  for  exactness 
of  statement;  and  did  there  not  occiu-,  as  we  have  said,  certain  clauses 
in  the  recommendations  of  the  joint  Committees  which  may  seem 
to  some  to  give  color  to  such  misapprehensions.  In  these  circum- 
stances we  feel  bound  to  advert  formally  to  the  matter. 

In  the  proposed  formal  basis  of  union  itself  we  read:  "The  union 
shall  be  effected  on  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 


20 

the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Auaeiica,  as  revised 
in  1903";  and  this  phrase  "as  revised  in  1903"  is  repeated  elsewhere, 
as  if  it  embodied  a  qualification  of  importance.  Attention  has  already 
been  directed  to  the  odd  "now"  occurring  in  the  opening  sentence  of 
the  first  "Concurrent  Declaration "  as  liable  to  a  similar  interpretation : 
"It  is  mutually  recognized  that  such  agreement  now  exists  between 
the  systems  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  two 
Chmxhes  as  to  warrant  this  union."  Further  on  in  the  same  Declara- 
tion specific  appeal  is  made  to  the  Declaratory  Statement  of  1903, 
apparently  as  if  in  some  way  it  secured  to  the  signatories  of  the  Con- 
fession greater  "liberty"  than  was  enjoyed  before.  Even  the  subse- 
quent allusion  to  the  "Brief  Statement  of  the  Reformed  Faith," 
although  altogether  impertinent,  inasmuch  as  that  docmueut  is 
no  part  of  our  Standards,  may  possibly  operate  to  strengthen  the 
impression  which  these  other  clauses  make,  that  the  re\ision 
of  1903  is  felt  to  have  in  some  way  essentially  changed  the 
doctrinal  basis  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 

It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  all  these  clauses  are  intended  only 
to  suggest  that  the  revision  of  1903  removes  some  misapprehen- 
sions as  to  the  teaching  of  the  Confession,  liitherto  cherished  by  our 
Cumberland  brethren,  and  to  that  extent  renders  it  more  accept- 
able to  them.  Let  us  hope  that  this  is  what  is  intended.  Mean- 
while it  is  difficult  to  avoid  fearing  that  more  significance  has  been 
attached  to  them  by  our  Cumberland  Presbyterian  brethren,  and  is 
in  danger  of  being  attached  to  them  in  the  future;  and  that  the 
repeated  reference  in  them  to  the  revision  of  1903  indicates  that  it  is 
vaguely  felt  by  our  brethren  that  that  revision  in  some  way  or  other 
so  modified  our  Confession  that  adherents  of  the  Cumberland  Con- 
fession can  now  with  a  good  conscience  subscribe  our  Confession  also. 
If  there  is  any  danger  of  such  a  misapprehension  existing  or  coming 
into  existence,  it  is  at  once  made  our  duty  to  say  with  all  emphasis 
that  the  revisions  and  enlargements  entered  into  the  Confession  in 
1903  in  no  way  affect  the  radical  disagreement  between  the  Confessions 
of  Faith  in  authority  in  the  two  Churches,  and  do  not  make  it  one 
whit  more  possible  to  hold  to  them  both  in  common.  With  ihese 
revisions  and  enlargements  as  without  them,  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  is  and  remains 
a  soundly,  explicitly,  emphatically  Calvinistic  document;  under  tlic 
aegis  of  which  nothing  but  clear  and  consistent  Cahinism  can  legiti- 
mately find  refuge. 

It  certainly  would  be  strange  if  it  were  otherwise.  In  appointing  its 
Committee  to  formulate  amendments — whether  in  the  form  of  modi- 
fications of  the  text  or  of  Declaratory  Statement  or  of  additional 
statements — the  Assembly  strictly  instructed  it  to  propose  no  revisions 
which  should  in  anj'  way  "impair  the  integrity  of  the  sy.^tcm  of  doc- 


21 

trine  set  forth  iu  our  Confebsiou  and  taught  in  tlie  Holy  Scripture."* 
Working  under  these  instructions,  nothing  was  fnore  emphasized  by 
the  Committee  itself  or  by  the  friends  of  the  proposals  made  by  it, 
ihrotighout  all  the  debates  which  ended  in  the  adoption  of  these  pro- 
posals, than  just  that  they  "in  no  way  impaired  the  integrity  of  the 
system  of  doctrine  set  forth  in  our  Confession."  It  surely  would  be  a 
sad  miscarriage  if,  nevertheless,  they  have  so  impaii'ed  the  integrity  of 
that  system  as  to  make  way  in  the  revised  document  for  its  precise 
contradiction.  Even  the  most  cursory  examination  of  the  matter 
introduced  by  this  revision  will  suffice,  however,  to  show  the  absurdity 
of  such  a  supposition.  We  have  not  the  happiness  to  count  ourselves 
among  the  admirers  of  the  revision  of  1903.  But  it  is  impossible  to 
contend  that  that  revision  in  any  way  modifies  the  system  of  doctrihc 
taught  in  our  Confession,  or  in  any  degree  lowers  the  clearness  or 
emphasis  with  which  it  is  taught.  The  sections  introduced  by  it 
are,  in  our  judgment,  needless  excrescences  on  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  the  Confession  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  better  without  them. 
But  taking  their  place  in  the  fabric  of  the  Confession,  they  enter 
harmoniously  into  its  system  and  modify  that  system  in  no  single 
particular. 

It  is  quite  possible,  to  be  sure,  that  one  whose  ideas  as  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Confession  have  been  derived  not  from  that  docu- 
ment itself,  but  from  polemic  allusions  to  it  current  in  circles 
inimical  to  it  and  to  the  system  of  doctrine  which  it  teaches,  may 
not  recognize  in  the  clauses  of  the  Declaratory  Statement 
adopted  in  1903,  for  example,  elements  of  truth  which  he  has 
been  accustomed  to  think  of  as  provided  for  in  the  Confession 
or  as  capable  of  finding  a  place  in  the  .system  taught  in  it.  But  this 
would  be  his  fault,  not  the  fault  of  the  Confession  or  of  the  Calvinistic 
system  taught  by  it.  It  is  safe  to  say,  on  the  other  hand,  that  no  one 
over  held  the  doctrine  of  God's  Eternal  Decree  as  taught  in  the  Con- 
fession, who  did  not  hold  it  in  harmony  with  the  love  of  God  for  all 
mankind  and  the  other  truths  set  forth  in  the  Declaratory  Statement. 
For  this  very  reason,  many  of  us  thought  that  it  was  entirely  nnneces- 
sary  to  make  a  Declaratory  Statement  for  the  purpose  of  asserting 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  decree  taught  in  the  Confession  is  in  harmony 
with  these  precious  truths;  and  that  the  very  making  of  such  a  Declara- 
tory Statement  would  be  liable  therefore  to  such  misapprehension  in 
imperfectly  informed  circles  as  may  possibly  be  exhibited  in  the  clauses 
now  tuider  discussion.  But  for  this  very  reason  again  the  making  of 
this  Statement  introduces  absolutely  notiiing  new  and  in  no  way  alters 
or  modifies  or  affects  the  doctrine  of  God's  Eternal  Decree,  which  is 
quite  truly,  and  quite  superfluously,  reasserted  in  the  Declaratory 
Act  to  be  in  harmony  with  these  precious  truths.  It  would  be  a  delu- 
sion of  the  most  serious  character  to  fancy  that  because  this  harmony, 

*  Minutes  for  1901,  p.  206;  for  1902,  p.  S7. 


22 

universally,  not  admitted  but  asserted  and  demonstrated,  by  all  the 
adherents  of  the  Confession,  is  thus  thrown  into  emphasis  in  a  Declara- 
tory Statement  for  the  sake  of  those  who,  being  without,  have  per- 
sistently misrepresented  the  facts,  the  Confession  may  now  be  legiti- 
mately adopted  as  their  own  Confession  by  men  who  passionately 
deny  the  truth  of  one  of  the  doctrines  the  harmony  of  which  is  here 
asserted ;  and  that,  on  the  precise  ground  that  this  harmony  does  not 
exist  and  cannot  exist. 

What  is  true  of  the  Declaratory  Statement  is  true  of  the  other 
elements  of  the  revision  of  1903.  We  may  like  them  or  not  like 
them — we  happen  to  be  of  the  number  of  those  who  do  not 
like  them.  We  may  think  they  improve  the  Confession  or  mar  it — 
we  happen  to  be  of  the  number  of  those  who  think  they  mar  it.  But 
no  man  can  justly  attribute  to  them  either  the  intention  or  the  effect 
of  de-Calvinizing  the  Confession  and  rendering  it  a  document  which 
our  Arminian  brethren  may  legitimately  adopt. 

What  has  been  thus  said  of  the  possible  notion  that  the  "revision 
of  1903"  may  render  our  Confession  easier  of  adoption  by  adherents 
of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Confession  must  be  repeated  in  effect 
of  the  parallel  notion  that  the  Declaratory  Act  of  1903  in  any  way 
enlarges  the  dimensions  of  the  liberty  enjoyed  by  our  ofKce-bearcrs 
under  their  ordination  vow.  Quite  possibly  the  purpose  with  which 
the  clauses  of  the  Declaratory  Act  which  recite  the  ordination  vow 
are  quoted  in  the  "Concurrent  Declarations"  is  not  to  suggest  that  the 
"liberty  of  belief"  enjoyed  by  the  officers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
is  enlarged  by  the  Act.  Possibly  what  is  intended  is  only  to  take  com- 
fort from  the  fact  that  this  "liberty  of  belief"  is  more  firmly  secured 
to  office-bearers  by  its  recitation  in  the  Declaratory  Act,  inasmuch  as 
it  is  thus  incorporated  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  itself,  and  not  left 
merely  to  the  provisions  of  tlie  Form  of  Government.  Let  us  hope 
that  this  is  the  case.  Meanwhile  it  must  be  allowed  that  the  manner 
in  which  the  Declaratory  Act  is  cited  here  gives  some  color  to  the  notion 
that  it  may  be  thought  to  enlarge  the  dimensions  of  the  liberty  enjoyed 
by  Presbyterian  office-bearei's ;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  some  may 
so  read  it.  In  the  face  of  this  possibility  it  becomes  incumbent  on  us 
to  see  that  such  a  misapprehension  does  not  take  root. 

It  is  not  in  the  least  true  that  the  Declaratory  Act  enlarges  the 
dimensions  of  our  "liberty  of  belief."  In  quoting  the  ordination 
vow  it  quotes  it  as  it  lies  on  the  face  of  the  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, and  it  does  not  in  the  least  modify  it  in  quoting  it.  It 
does  indeed  say  that  the  ordination  vow  demands  nothing  more 
than  it  demands,  but  that  was  certainly  true  before  it  said  it.  It 
leaves  the  ordination  vow  (which  it  merely  quotes)  precisely  as  it 
was  when  it  found  it,  viz.,  a  vow  demanding  of  all  who  accept  our 
Confession  of   Faith  that    they  accept  it  as  a  system  of  doctrine; 


23 

and  that  they  affirm  by  their  acceptance  of  it  that  this  system 
of  doctrine  is  the  system  of  doctrine  that  is  taught  in  Holy  Scripture. 
\Yc  cannot  deem  it  possible  that  any  one  wll  seriously  contend  that 
the  words  "only  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures"  can  legitimately  be  interpreted  as  meaning  "only  so 
far  as  containing,  etc."  If  any  such  exists  he  must  undeceive  himself 
at  once.  The  sense  is  nothing  other  than,  "only  in  this  sense,  namely, 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine" — that  is  to  say,  not  in  its  every 
proposition  or  mode  of  statement,  but  only  in  the  system  of  doctrine 
it  contains,  to  wit,  the  Calvinistic  system.  There  is,  so  far  as  we  Icnow, 
no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  import  of  the  ordination  vow  in  our 
Cliurches:  it  is  everywhere  understood  and  administered  as  binding 
those  taking  it  merely  to  tlie  system  and  not  to  the  detailed  manner 
of  stating  that  system ;  but  as  binding  them  strictly  to  the  system  in 
its  integrity  and  in  its  entirety.  As  such  it  has  been  justly  lauded  as 
combining  in  itself  all  reasonable  liberty  with  all  reasonable  strictness 
— binding  as  it  does  to  the  great  system  of  doctrine  expressed  in  the 
Confession  ^-ith  absolute  strictness,  and  }'et  leaving  room  for  all  pos- 
sible individual  preferences  in  modes  of  conceiving  and  stating  tliis 
system.  Under  this  combined  strictness  and  liberty  every  genuine 
form  of  Cahdnism  has  an  equal  right  of  existence  under  the  Confession. 
The  Realist  can  accept  it  with  as  good  a  conscience  as  the  Federalist; 
the  Amyraldian  with  as  good  a  conscience  as  the  Cocceian.  But 
Iioyond  the  hmits  of  generic  Calvinism  the  right  of  adoption  ceases. 
Our  vow  of  ordination  is  not  a  solemn  farce:  and  the  terms  of  our 
adoption  of  the  Confession  are  not  so  phrased  as  to  enable  us  to  seem 
to  adopt  it  while  not  adopting  it  at  all. 

Such,  tlien,  are  some  of  the  misgivings  we  have  felt  as  \vc  have  con- 
templated the  terms  of  union  between  the  two  CIuutIics  wliirh  the  joint 
Committees  have  agreed  upon  as  proper  to  propose  to  the  approaching 
Assembhes.  It  may  bo.  that  we  have  exercised  our  soul  vmnecessarily. 
It  may  be  that  in  consr'uting  to  unite  with  us  on  the  basis  of  our  own 
doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  Standards,  our  brethren  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Churcli,  resting  under  no  fatal  misapprehensions  as  to 
either  tlic  sense  of  thi^se  Standards  or  tlie  meaning  of  the  act  of  adopting 
them,  intend  to  say  that  they  have  come  in  the  process  of  time  to  see 
eye  to  eye  with  us,  and  now  wish  to  join  with  us  in  confessing  the  great 
tr\iths  of  God  to  wliich  o\ir  common  ancestors,  centuries  ago,  gave 
their  testimony,  even  unto  blood — that  great  system  of  doctrine  known 
to  the  modern  world  as  Calvinism,  which  is  just  the  thetical  expression 
of  evangelical  religion  in  its  purity.  Who  could  rejoice  over  such  a  con- 
summation more  than  we?  Except,  indeed,  our  Cumberland  brethren 
themselves,  who  would  be  thus,  after  so  many  years  of  misapprehen- 
sion, and  separation  based  on  misapprehen.sion,  returning  not  only  to 
the  fold  whence  they  went  fortli,  but  to  tlie  riclies  of  that  l^ody  o{  truth 


24 


which  is  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  Even  in  that  case,  however, 
it  cannot  be  that  we  have  spoken  in  vain.  In  any  case,  there  is  nothing 
so  good  in  negotiations  of  this  kind  as  a  good  understanding :  and  a  good 
understanding  that  we  agree  is  siu-ely  as  good  as  a  good  understanding 
that  we  differ.  In  any  event,  therefore,  let  us  come  to  a  good  under- 
standing— an  understanding  so  good  that  no  liu-king  misunderstanding 
remains  possible.  If  the  two  Churches  are  really  at  one — one  in  faith 
as  in  order,  one  in  doctrine  as  in  devotion ;  and  if  it  be  best  for  the 
interests  of  which  they  have  severally  in  their  separated  states  come 
to  be  the  supports  and  stays :  why,  then  let  them  become  also  one  in 
form  as  already  in  fact.  If  they  be  not  really  one,  let  them  clearly 
recognize  it.  and  not  seek  to  force  themselves  into  some  artificial 
external  unity  which  cannot  in  those  circimistances  fail  to  wound  con- 
sciences and  injure  vested  interests.  There  is  something  better  than 
"  organic  union."  Mutual  regard  and  brotherly  spirit  are  better :  and  it 
is  assuredly  better  that  these  should  persist  without  "organic  union" 
than  that  "organic  union"  should  be  built  up  on  their  niins. 

Princeton.  Benjamin  B.  Warfield. 


r 


'iir    ]!"'°'°9"^^'   Seminary-SpMr   Librar 


1    1012  01023  7982 


